can you see the question attached ?
Assessment Brief *This document is for CU Group students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to
[email protected] Module Title: Economic and Financial Management Module Code: 501MAN Assessment Type: Coursework Assessment Number: 1 Study Mode: Full-time 10 Credits Submission Date: Submission Time: 18:00 1,500 Word Analysis Introduction: Managers and leaders in organisations may be expected to monitor and measure the performance of an organisation to for fill its aims and objectives. Analysis of business performance, allows managers to make informed decisions in the best interests of organisational success alongside its long term strategy. You are required to select and research a UK based charity. Completion of this assignment will address the following learning outcomes: 1 Identify and evaluate the impact the economy has on business organisations 2 Appraise and apply economic theory to a range of contemporary business contexts. 3 Analyse the micro and macro-economic forces on contemporary business. Task: Title: Economics and the business You are to produce a 1,500 word analysis in report format on the micro and macro-economic factors that have affected your chosen charity over the last three years. Your report should review and reflect your knowledge and theory of economics. It must include an analysis of the impact of the mirco and macro environmental factors in relation to you chosen Charity. Your audience is the governing body. You should cover learning outcomes 1, 2 & 3. Your choice of charity should be agreed with your tutor during tutorials. Guidance notes and considerations Late Submission If you are not able to complete your coursework on time due to extenuating circumstances, the ONLY way to receive an extension (up to 5 working days) or a deferral (anything longer than 5 working days) is to contact a Registry team member located at your specific CU site. CU Coventry –
[email protected] CU London –
[email protected] CU Scarborough –
[email protected] * Extenuating circumstances are defined by CU as ‘genuine circumstances beyond your control or ability to foresee, and which seriously impair your assessed work’. * Please note that you will need to provide third party evidence to support your reasoning for requiring an extension or deferral. * Your course tutor is NOT able to approve an extension or a deferral, if you have not completed the official forms and had your request approved your work will count as not submitted and receive a zero mark. Plagiarism and Malpractice * You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on your Moodle Web. * Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to all coursework and exam answers. * A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own work. * If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts. * You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism. Submission Guidelines There should be a title page which clearly identifies the following; * Name of the module * Title of the Assessment* Assessment number * Word count The word count identified includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography and unless specifically stated, encompasses a discrepancy of + or – 10%. Banding Knowledge and Understanding (30%) Analysis, Evaluation and Application of Theory (30%) Quality of Research (20%) Academic Writing (20%) 90-100% Exceptional knowledge base exploring, analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with extraordinary originality and autonomy. Demonstrates an exceptional grasp of relevant analytical techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows a highly developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical and evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is highly detailed. Exceptional appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout all assessment outcomes. Approach to assessment task is theoretically informed to an exceptional standard. Exceptional exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assessment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with flawless synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication. Exceptional answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present and referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication. 80-89% Outstanding knowledge base exploring, analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with clear originality and autonomy. Demonstrates an outstanding grasp of relevant analytical and/or evaluative techniques. Shows a developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical and/or evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is detailed and sophisticated. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work. Approach to assessment task is clearly and appropriately theoretically informed. Outstanding exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with a high degree of synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. Outstanding answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. 70-79% Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality. Demonstrates a detailed, accurate, theoretical understanding. Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is applied to the individual learning outcomes. Makes excellent use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline and applies these effectively. Shows developed ability to appraise alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant. Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with an attempt made at synthesis, leading to interesting ideas. Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is entirely relevant and focused with a clear argument/line of reasoning throughout. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic writing style applied throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. 60-69% Very good knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed. Makes very good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline. Shows developing ability to compare alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant. Very good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with some evidence of synthesis. Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is relevant and focused. Discipline specific vocabulary is used and academic writing style applied. Minimal language errors may be present but do not impact on clarity of expression. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is accurate. 50-59% Good knowledge base that supports some analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline. Makes good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories with some appropriate application. Good evidence of academic reading, with attempt at moving beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable with evidence of integration. Good answer with coherent and logical presentation. The answer is largely relevant but lacks focus at points. There is an attempt at using discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style. Some language errors are present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate. 40-49% Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding. Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline. Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Selection of theory, if relevant to the assessment outcomes is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited. Satisfactory evidence of academic reading, with minimal attempt to move beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding. Satisfactory answer with some attempt at coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. There is minimal use of discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style is inconsistently applied. Some language errors may be present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate but with some errors. 35-39% (Marginal Fail) Outcomes not or only partially met. Restricted knowledge base demonstrated. Limited understanding of discipline. Difficulty with linking theory and problem solving within the discipline. Attempts at analysis and/or evaluation ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory inaccurate and/or incomplete. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding very limited. Limited evidence of reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. Little evidence of integration. Answer is attempted but limited. Lack of coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains mainly irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout. Language errors are present and impact on clarity of expression. Academic writing style is not adhered to. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is inconsistent. 0 – 34% Little or no evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving within the discipline. Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant. Lacks any analysis and/or evaluation. Inadequate or no evidence of reading at an academic level with poor application of sources and ideas. Answer